Opinion
January 8, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Donati, J.).
Defendant was properly arraigned on a valid and sufficient accusatory instrument ( People v. Ford, 62 N.Y.2d 275). Defendant was provided with "a copy of the indictment" at arraignment (CPL 210.15); he has failed to overcome the presumption of regularity in connection with the voting, execution and recording of the indictment, as attested to by the appropriate Court Clerk, acting under official duty ( People v. Dominique, 90 N.Y.2d 880); and the record indicates that, as required by the provisions of CPL 200.50 (8), the original indictment was duly signed by the Grand Jury foreperson ( see, Brotherton v. People, 75 N.Y. 159, 162).
The court properly admitted the audiotape of the police chase of defendant that led to his arrest, under the present sense exception to the hearsay rule, and as probative of issues raised by defendant regarding identification and credibility of the apprehending officers ( see, People v. Buie, 86 N.Y.2d 501). That the audiotape corroborated the testimony of the apprehending officers, who were subject to cross-examination by the defense, did not render the audiotape inadmissible ( supra; see also, People v. Sanchez, 216 A.D.2d 207, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 850).
Since defendant chose to present his defense in terms of questioning the veracity of the People's witnesses, it was permissible for the prosecutor to ask defendant whether testimony that contradicted his own was "factual" or "inaccurate" ( see, People v. Spencer, 226 A.D.2d 160, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 995; People v. Thompson, 220 A.D.2d 239, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 851). We see no reason to disturb the court's ruling rejecting defendant's claim that the prosecutor's cross-examination of defendant was conducted in a "sarcastic" manner and in light of the overwhelming evidence against defendant, any error would be harmless ( see, People v. Thompson, supra).
The prosecutor's questioning of defendant regarding his use of aliases was in accordance with the court's Sandoval/ Molineux ruling ( see, People v. Fardan, 82 N.Y.2d 638, 645-646). Further, the court sustained defendant's general objection to the prosecutor asking defendant whether he was "surprised" by questions regarding prior convictions and since defendant requested no further relief, his current claim of undue prejudice is unpreserved ( see, People v. Rodriguez, 217 A.D.2d 422, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 874), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. In any event, in light of the overwhelming evidence against defendant, any error would be rendered harmless (supra).
Defendant's additional claims of error are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Rubin, Williams and Tom, JJ.